Pragya Prasun & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

p. 2905

needs. Life is accepted as including negative experiences, and impairment may be – but is not necessarily – on of them. Disabled people are defined as being people who experience the unnecessary barriers created by society within their daily life. Social Model of disability has gained ground in the international debate. This views disability as a social construct and emphasizes society’s shortcomings, stigmatization and discrimination in its reaction to persons with disability. It distinguishes between functional impairments (disability) both of a physical and psychological nature, and the loss of equal participation in social processes that only arises through interaction with the social setting (handicap). These developments have contributed to a new (WHO) model, which bears in mind social as well as functional and individual factors in its classification of health and health-related areas. Keeping in view the above, proper facilities are need to be provided to differently-abled persons while having higher education. 17) Insofar as the rights base approach is concerned, that has been narrated in detail in Rajive Raturi’s judgment. We may add that a basic underline assumption, which is well recognised, is that everyone can learn; there is no such person as one who is ineducable; and that, accordingly, all disabled persons (from whatever disability they are suffering) have right to get not only minimum education but higher education as well. Not making adequate provisions to facilitate proper education to such persons, therefore, would amount to discrimination. Such requirement

p. 2906

is to ensure that even a student with disability, after proper education, will be able to lead an independent, economically self-sufficient, productive and fully participatory life. This rights-based approach is an inclusive approach which calls for the participation of all groups of the population, including disadvantaged persons, in the development process. Inclusive development builds on the idea of ‘Society for All’ in which all people are equally free to develop their potential, contribute their skills and abilities for the common good and to take up their entitlements to social services. It emphasises strengthening the rights of the people with disabilities, and foster their participation in all aspects of life. A disability is only actually a disability when it prevents someone from doing what they want or need to do. A lawyer can be just as effective in a wheelchair, as long as she has access to the courtroom and the legal library, as well as to whatever other places and material or equipment that are necessary for her to do her job well. A person who can’t hear can be a master carpenter or the head of a chemistry lab, if he can communicate with clients and assistants. A person with mental illness can nonetheless be a brilliant scholar or theorist. The aforesaid discussion amply justifies right of access to students with disabilities to educational institutions in which they are admitted.” Further, in the above case, Justice A.K. Sikri, speaking for the bench, issued comprehensive directions to the Government to ensure accessibility across all levels of educational infrastructure. This included not only physical spaces – such as classrooms, libraries, hostels, and laboratories – but also the pedagogy itself. This court

p. 2907

emphasized that teaching methods and learning materials must be adapted to be fully accessible to all persons with disabilities, including those who are visually impaired and those with hearing impairments. This aligns with the broader mandate of the RPwD Act, 2016, to foster an inclusive and barrier free education system.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

15. The overall analysis would clearly establish that KYC formalities are needed to verify a customer’s identity, prevent fraud and money laundering, and comply with legal regulations. Consequently, several sectors have currently shifted their KYC formalities to digital means. Though digital KYC has benefitted the general public by making verification processes faster and more efficient, persons with blindness and low vision continue to face significant barriers in accessing and completing these procedures. Many such digital platforms are not compatible with screen readers, and crucial information is often presented in visual formats without alternative text. CAPTCHA tests, unlabeled form fields, and biometric verification methods such as facial recognition further exclude individuals with visual impairments. Moreover, those platforms often require fine motor control (e.g., precise selfie or signature capture) which is not feasible for individuals with mobility impairments. Additionally, interfaces are frequently overly complex and lack cognitive accessibility, thereby posing significant challenges for users with intellectual or learning disabilities. For instance, videos without captions prevent users from accessing information. Given the troubling state of government- run websites, it is easy to conjecture that the situation with private service providers is even worse. Such barriers significantly hinder the ability of persons with disabilities to work, learn, and engage with society, thereby violating their right to equal opportunity and full participation as guaranteed under the UNCRPD and national disability laws. These barriers collectively amount to a denial of equal access and violate the accessibility mandates under the RPwD Act, 2016 and results in economic and social marginalization. To combat this discrimination, governments and private entities must ensure that digital services comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and other accessibility standards. Further, legal frameworks should impose stringent requirements for digital inclusion, ensuring

p. 2908

that no individual is denied access to essential services on the basis of disability. Thus, it is clear that as per international standards and the RPwD Act, 2016, digital services are expected to be inclusive and accessible to all users, regardless of ability.

16. Admittedly, the petitioners herein who suffer from facial and eye disfigurements due to acid attacks and from visual impairment, are recognized as persons with disabilities as per the schedule appended to the RPwD Act, 2016. They have also highlighted their inability to complete KYC processes, which require them to perform visual tasks such as blinking, moving the head, or positioning their face within specified frames — tasks, which they are unable to accomplish due to their visual impairments and facial disfigurements. As a result, they encounter delays or are entirely unable to establish their identity, open bank accounts, or access essential services and government schemes. As indicated earlier, the constitutional and legal provisions mentioned above confer upon the aggrieved petitioners a statutory right to demand accessibility and appropriate reasonable accommodations in the digital KYC process. Moreover, the respondents have, fairly, expressed their commitment to ensuring that accessibility guidelines and standards are duly met. Therefore, it is imperative that the digital KYC guidelines are revised with accessibility at the core.

17. At this juncture, we may also wish to observe that in the contemporary era, where access to essential services, governance, education, healthcare, and economic opportunities is increasingly mediated through digital platforms, the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution must be reinterpreted in light of these technological realities. The digital divide – characterized by unequal access to digital infrastructure, skills, and content – continues to perpetuate systemic exclusion, not only of persons with disabilities, but also of large sections of rural populations, senior citizens, economically weaker communities, and linguistic minorities. The principle of substantive equality demands that digital transformation be both inclusive and equitable. As already pointed out, persons with disabilities encounter unique barriers in accessing online services due to the lack of accessible websites, applications and assistive technologies. Similarly, individuals in remote or rural areas often face poor connectivity, limited digital literacy, and a scarcity of content in

p. 2909

regional languages, effectively denying them meaningful access to e-governance and welfare delivery systems. In such circumstances, the State’s obligations under Article 21– read in conjunction with Articles 14,15 and 38 of the Constitution – must encompass the responsibility to ensure that digital infrastructure, government portals, online learning platforms, and financial technologies are universally accessible, inclusive and responsive to the needs of all vulnerable and marginalized populations. Bridging the digital divide is no longer merely a matter of policy discretion but has become a constitutional imperative to secure a life of dignity, autonomy and equal participation in public life. The right to digital access, therefore, emerges as an intrinsic component of the right to life and liberty, necessitating that the State proactively design and implement inclusive digital ecosystems that serve not only the privileged but also the marginalized, those who have been historically excluded.

DIRECTIVES

18. Thus, in order to make the process of digital KYC accessible to persons with disabilities, especially facial / eye disfigurements due to acid attacks and visual impairments, we issue the following directions: (i) The respondent authorities/Ministries shall direct all REs, whether government or private to follow accessibility standards as prescribed from time to time. The respondents shall appoint a nodal officer in every department responsible for digital accessibility compliance. (ii) All regulated entities must mandatorily undergo periodical accessibility audit by certified accessibility professionals and involve persons with blindness in user acceptance testing phase while designing any app or website or in case of any new feature being launched. (iii) Respondent No. 2/ RBI shall issue guidelines to all regulated entities to adopt and incorporate alternative modes for verifying the “liveness” or capturing a “live photograph” of the customers, as mandated under Annex-I of the MD on KYC, 2016, for the purpose of conducting Digital KYC / e-KYC beyond the traditional “blinking of eyes” to ensure inclusivity and user- convenience.

p. 2910

(iv) Respondent No. 2 / RBI shall issue appropriate clarifications / guidelines / directions to all regulated entities that they have Customer Due Diligence (CDD) and on-boarding of new customers can be done using the video-based KYC process or the “V-CIP” procedure, in accordance with the provisions of the MD on KYC, 2016, wherein blinking of the eyes is not a mandatory requirement. (v) The respondent authorities must design their KYC templates or customer acquisition forms to capture disability type and percentage of the customer and appropriately record as part of the account records so as to provide them accessible services or reasonable accommodations. (vi) The respondent authorities should provide clear directions to all regulated entities to accept image of thumb impression during Digital KYC process. (vii) Respondent No. 2 / RBI shall amend the MD on KYC so as to enhance the implementation of the ‘OTP based e-KYC authentication’ (face-to-face) to customers. (viii) Respondent No.3 shall make the necessary amendments and/ or modifications to its notification dated 05.12.2023 thereby ensuring that the paper-based KYC process for verification of customers shall continue, enabling the petitioners and other similarly placed individuals to avail an accessible alternative for completing the KYC procedure. (ix) The respondent authorities shall provide options for sign language interpretation, closed captions, and audio descriptions for visually and hearing-impaired users. (x) The respondent authorities shall develop alternative formats including Braille, easy-to-read formats, voice-enabled services, to disseminate government notifications and deliver public services, ensuring accessibility for all. (xi) All regulated entities should procure or design devices or websites / applications / software in compliance of accessibility standards for ICT Products and Services as notified by Bureau of Indian Standards.

p. 2911

(xii) The respondent authorities shall ensure that online services including e-governance platforms, digital payment systems, and e-launching platforms, are accessible to persons with disabilities, thereby fostering a barrier-free digital environment. (xiii) The respondent authorities are directed to ensure that all websites, mobile applications and digital platforms comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 and other relevant national standards, such as the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW). It shall be mandatory for all Government websites to adhere to Section 46 of the RPwD Act, 2016, which requires both electronic and print media to be accessible to persons with disabilities. (xiv) The respondent authorities shall issue appropriate guidelines to develop and implement a mechanism where customers who have already completed their KYC process with one regulated entity may authorize the sharing of their KYC information with other entities through the Central KYC Registry (CKYCR). (xv) The respondent authorities shall establish a dedicated grievance redressal mechanism for persons with disabilities to report accessibility issues. (xvi) The respondent authorities shall establish a mechanism for human review of rejected KYC applications in cases where accessibility-related challenges prevent successful verification. A designated human officer shall be empowered to override automated rejections and approve applications on a case- by-case basis. (xvii) The respondent authorities shall establish dedicated helplines for persons with disabilities, offering step-by-step assistance in completing the KYC process through voice or video support. (xviii) Respondent No. 2 / RBI shall routinely initiate public campaigns through press release/ advertisement in electronic/ print and social media portals and to raise awareness, increase sensitization, and ensure effective dissemination of information about alternative methods of conducting Digital KYC / e-KYC and circulate standardized materials and mandate all regulated entities to display notices containing such information.

p. 2912

(xix) The respondent authorities should mandate inclusion of disability awareness and training modules as part of e-learning modules for officials of regulated entities for better sensitization of officials. (xx) Respondent No. 2 / RBI shall monitor and ensure strict adherence by all regulated entities to the guidelines / notifications / directions issued by it, including those in terms of directions issued by this Court in the instant Writ Petition.

19. With the aforesaid directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

20. Connected Miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

aghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)